Pages

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Gibberish

IIB supergravity axion-dilaton coset, SL(2,R)/SO(2), 7-branes in the conjugacy classes of the Q7-branes. In order to realize a gauge fields of the Q7-branes in the brane to the Q7-branes that belong to different conjugacy classes are determined by an SL(2,R) naturally couple to IIB supergravity with appropriate source terms characterize the conjugacy classes are determinant of Q. The 7-branes with conjugacy class det Q = 0. We construct the Q7-branes. We construct the matrix Q and it will be called by three numbers (p, q, r) which parameterize the matrix Q and will be called Q7-brane world-volume labelled by three numbers (p, q, r) which parameterize the full bosonic Wess-Zumino term for the gauge invariant coupling of the full bosonic Wess-Zumino term for the gauge invariant couplingof the matrix Q and will be called Q7-branes. In order to realize a gauge fields of IIB supergravity it is necessary.

Tragically, the original text was on the same level of comprehensibility. For more fun of that sort, try the Gibberish Generator.

51 comments:

Jabberwocky is a classic and all time favorite of mine. Hundreds of very funny parodies of "Jaberwocky" can be found all over the internet.

The blatherings of the magical man Barack Obama ranks very high on the jibberish and shallowness scale. I would score him a ten-highest possible score. Well done Barack!!! Now we can promote you to President of the joke nation America. It is terrfying that a large number of college educated adults hang onto the jibberish uttered by the big phony Barack Obama in his campaign speeches. It does looke like PHDs in physics-including the one that occuoies Feynman's office at Cal Tech-are well represented in this group of adults enthralled by the jibberish uttered by the prophet Obama during his campign speeches.

Not sure i'd use Brane research as the pinnacle of incomprehensible jargon. I can follow most of the material without being a string theorist, so thats saying something. I don't think its particularly opaque.

Well, the Sokal paper got published in a social science journal, so possibly an audience that is more used to verbal Gibberish. I thought that was the whole point of the hoax, no? Unfortunately, there seems to be a trend in physics to be as incomprehensible as possible. What I find particularly upsetting is how many journals publish papers in which the essential quantities used are not defined. For someone who hasn't worked in the field previously, it is almost impossible to find out what people are talking about without actually going and asking somebody who is in the field. Best,

For someone who hasn't worked in the field previously, it is almost impossible to find out what people are talking about without actually going and asking somebody who is in the field.

I left this quote below over at the FQXi site on a post by William Orem for consideration.

"The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience".Einstein

WE know there is a mathematical basis required and would require good mathematicians to be able to impart this understanding in the everyday world( one would I think tend to look for these mathematic insights). Thus it is from this position that while one may speak about science in the everyday world there must be a mathematical framework. No? Yes?

Why I frequent those that do talk about brane views from a educated point of view:) It's inception? The "simplistic explanation" supported by.

Gravity, like the bee, can go everywhere. We call this the brane world, a rather natural phenomenon in superstring theory. At the moment, physicists are working hard to understand this scenario better and to find ways to experimentally test this idea.Ask A Scientist!

If you asked for it I definitely would have a hard time finding it, but I would oblige if asked. I would suspect Clifford would have this readily, but as a lone researcher and not of the profession and by memory to boot, "a group train ride comes to mind and a quick solution."

Trust me if I say this to you that if you have a hard time, can you imagine my difficulties?:)Like Phil, I persevere.

We cally classes are deterize a gauge fields of the matrix Q and with conjugacy classes in the matrix Q = 0. We called Q7-brane world-volume labelong to IIB supergravity axion-dilaton couple to different conjugacy classes the Q7-brane terms charameterms characterm for the fields of the gauge invariant conjugacy classes invariant construct the Q7-branes will belong to terize the matrix Q and with appropriant construct the 7-brane the matrix Q an SL(2,R) naturally classes invariate source to realize a From Gibberish and translation of above quote by Bee.

"Sokal science talking is how many journals possible. What I that was in the hoax, no? Unfortunately, it is almost is more to verbal Gibberish. I field papers incompreviously, the Sokal quantities used in audience talking is in the essentities used asking about was in physics the how many journal, someone what impossible. What publish. I find out actually upsetting an a someone who hasn't withought the field prehensible asking and in which the essentities used in the essentities used in audience jour"

An interesting thing about the gibberish generator is that it allows one to *detect* gibberish, as follows: if you put in gibberish, what comes out should be just as stupid as what goes in. For example, I took some of Lubos Motl's gibberish about decoherence, fed it into the gg, and got this:

As weaker. And whenevery large, that's be exactors are ally smally real gravitates than that ther partic gravitates of that dark matted, the microst uniquely smally excited is very large, there the visible".If you findictable world: the number of "chaoticles only are almost uniquely real that dark massive partic gravitons" the microscopically smaller and examples where ally deter you find where these from macroscopic photons" the visible world: these gravitational waves ther of "chaoticles emit

Actually, that seems to make MORE sense than the original! Good heavens!

I fail to see what is so upsetting about what I wrote. I was simply stating that I find this abstract (I don't know who it is by) very inaccessible. Not that I tried very hard to extract meaning out of it. If anything, that expresses my own disinterest, for not to say, ignorance. It serves to examplify that physics has become increasingly more specialized. Best,

In reading this I was brought to imagine a keen undergraduate who was turning to look at the papers being written in the field he was interested in pursuing in graduate school and thinking how they might suddenly decide to abandon their aspirations in favour of something that made some sense. I would suggest that not only does such gibberish not add to the body of knowledge, yet may further serve to discourage many from ever consider making the attempt. I would admit however it does bring the concept of abstract to an entirely new level.

I trust everybody with an IQ above that of a chicken is able to tell Lubos' accusations are vacuous and merely expressions of his anger that I am one again not sure how I caused it. But besides this, I am presently so stressed out I indeed feel like a zombie stuck in the twilight zone. Hope to be back to normal within the next weeks. Best,

"expressions of his anger that I am once again not sure how I caused it"

Perhaps Lubos thinks this post is an insinuation that the paper is intrinsically meaningless, rather than a statement that you personally found it opaque.

For my part, if I had run across the paper for some reason, I would have thought, "technical work concerning 7-branes" and left it at that. But as I find it hard to resist a challenge like this, I've asked myself what the paper is actually about, and I don't think it's so hard to understand. You have a supergravity. You have branes that interact with it. There is a symmetry which dictates the form of the interaction and the set of charges carried by the branes. Some of them have two quantum numbers, some have three. (OK, calling p, q, r quantum numbers is probably technically wrong. But they are classifying parameters of some sort.) And then there's a technical bit about introducing fields (gauge fields?) inside the branes in order to write the interaction in a manifestly symmetric form. That's what I get from the abstract.

Although the original article might not ever lead to anything physical plausible, saying that it is is gibberish is a little bit unfair. I mean, it is something that might be very important and mathematicaly consistent to a group of people of that area, and it doesn't look like the authors were acting dishonestly. And you see, even though that is might not eventualy represent physics, the brane and string field of research do have a mathematical importance by themselves, as Peter Woit constantly points out.

My post is not a comment on the paper. Believe it or not, I don't know who the text is by that I pulled through the generator. It sounds similar enough to the abstract of the above mentioned paper though, so possibly indeed by one of the authors. I was just looking for a random piece of text, I never even looked at the paper. So could you please stop taking this too seriously? I believe I have expressed previously many times that I understand very well the merits of highly abstract mathematical excursions. Still the question remains for me, if it runs under 'physics' shouldn't it at least make an attempt to explain what it's good for in describing nature? Best,

Sorry Bee, now knowing it was not intentional I have to say what might of happened and caused the frustration, "just guessing" for Lubos and your humour.

Not that it matters once it gets to the point of the language anymore, it might be revealing of others who hold his view, think he is quite knowledgeable, just that this verbiage destroys any attempts by not being civil.

Anyway here is a thought written for another, and leave it here for consideration.

It's hard sometime to understand "what it is" that can make one angry and it may be deep seated, that one's freedom under a rule, can force people to behave the way their thinking is in that worldview. As in, it is being overtaken by subversive attitudes "less then professional."

This not an excuse mind you.

I thought, in opening up the awareness of what "drives people" and the way that they lash out, one might get to understand that what is lofty and abstract, may not be understood, can somehow become the brunt of what also is intellectual expressed in a lower then sound voice by introducing "gibberash and an associative thought about the subject."

While not meaning to be this disrespectful it is a tactic that was used by some to accuse people of being "less then honest about the mathematical attachment to reality" and the attempts of good scientist to move thought forward in different arenas.

This is probably obvious, but just to make sure. The text in question is the abstract of a published paper

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1126-6708/2007/12/079

This paper presents a calculation which is part of a large research program, whose results are interesting and useful. Just because there is no mention of physics motivation in those two sentences, it doesn't mean there isn't such motivation, though it will take more than a few seconds to uncover it.

This conversation is not very different from the recent comments of Sarah Palin, who assumes that fruit fly research is obviously absurd, just because she cannot immediately see the benefits in it.

To be honest, I am kind of pissed off by this discussion. I have spend several years on this blog repeatedly pointing out the necessity for fundamental research and the importance of mathematically abstract studies. Then I go an make a joke, and defenders of the abstract abstracts start pointing fingers at me as if I was to endanger the purpose of their being. Thank you very much, I learned my lession. Btw, why is it do you think that people retreat to anonymity?

Besides this, I actually first gibberished an abstract of my own most recent paper, unfortunately the outcome was still well to understand. I then tried some other texts until I ended up with the one above (which was not an abstract of mentioned paper, but the abstract of a seminar whose speaker I do not know.) I never said this research is 'absurd'. In fact, I did not make any comment on the content whatsoever. I have no doubt that whoever works on it can come up with some motivation when asked. But no, it does not fall into my area of interest.

What annoys me about this is that given my opinions on all kind of matters are by now very well documented, I get the sense of a deliberate and cheerful misinterpretation of my intentions. This really puts me off, since it gives me the feeling that writing a blog (as well as commenting on other people's blogs) is more like walking a minefield, where with every wrong step one of the touchy people will jump up and yell at you for nothing but walking. Best,

Bee (or should i say Sarah:-)) you shouldn't be surprised by the reactions. You hit a sore point with your post even if you did it unintentionally. More and more now days (as you know better), string theory is criticized that it doesn't make physical sense anymore and it has been evolved to a maze with no way out of it and with no light in the tunnel. It is only natural (and i don't mean the insults of course) for string theorists to be so jumpy and to defend their territory and their life's work so strongly, especially if they too feel that there is a ground for this criticism. So i wouldn't' expect if i were you to be congratulated for a good joke; not because they don't have a sense of humor but because there are too much at stake and this make things serious.

OK, you are right, it was not clear to me if this is meant as a criticism (which would be an extremely unfair one), but put in context this looks like just a simple joke. No need to be overly sensitive, hopefully I learned my lesson as well.

Bee:I get the sense of a deliberate and cheerful misinterpretation of my intentions

I was honest from the get go. First post.

I am not a string theorist but do allude to trying to understand the concepts even after all these years and the flack it takes, as if having been through the minefield myself. I would hate it to become what it had become with Peter. You and Stefan have been more then generous allowing me here.

I did come to understand this was not intentional and went back to your "sense of humour" and realized it for what it was. I would have never produced Sokal right away if I did not know what you were saying. I had to be sure in my mind. This has no reflection on you.

I hated the science wars, while just trying to learn. Facing sniping from leaders in science as to the positions they hold?

I would of never responded to uncle in the way I did unless it was to make clear the foundational perspective although mathematically is a real one and one besmirched by innuendo and out right hostility.

My remark about the misinterpretation was not referring to you. No need to thank us for allowing you here. Your comments are usually on topic and offer a different point of view. Though I often not really know what to do with them so they remain unanswered. I believe I said that before.

But speaking of the Sokal hoax, here is something I've often wondered about: Why? Shouldn't the first premise of academic research be integrity and mutual trust in that we share a common interest to unravel the truth. Then somebody goes and abuses this trust to then make fun of it? It seems to me like an odd thing to do. We all know that peer review isn't perfect. Best,

Shouldn't the first premise of academic research be integrity and mutual trust in that we share a common interest to unravel the truth. Then somebody goes and abuses this trust to then make fun of it? It seems to me like an odd thing to do. We all know that peer review isn't perfect

Your absolutely right Bee.

ON the one hand it revealed something about the substance of Sokal's topic( people used that subject to discern things) and then to purposely malign with the intention of seeing who is actually understanding and to see how things can be passed off.

This predates some of the issues that have moved some of the ideas behind peer review, and who's doing what, because of their position. It is really sickening looking in, from the outside to see such allegations of scientists, to one another.

This tit for tat.

It was in my mind that I could see two individual scientists arguing in a civil manner, their opposing position. To see if elements would reveal themself through conceptual exchange and differences of opinion. The "polarization" was awful and it seemed to pervade all boards of discussion. Even today.

There is nothing more richer to me then to see mathematical insight development, and this basis revealed. Then, to see this concept exposed to the world at large. See how it would work. Andrew once mentioned how terrible he felt for Tegmark, but it is a bold soul who moves ahead regardless to demonstrate his/her idea, ideal and thinking to manifest in form. People may find mistakes as they go along, does not mean the idea has been completely falsified, just that you have to go back and do your homework.

How does this affect the perceptions one can have of the world around them? One would still like to advocate responsibility, but why would a scientist need remind another scientist?

“I never said, neither here nor elsewhere, that the paper Lubos is referring to is gibberish.”

Perhaps it is not and yet except for all of what amounts to a handful of specialists it is certainly written in giberalese. Imagine if our civilization falls like those in the past and this is one of a few fragments of our present that surfaces to survive in the future, what possible insight would it bring to those that discover it. I’m of course aware that the argument will be that the subject is so advanced that what it conveys could never possibly be all that self supporting or explanatory. Yet if it be regarded significant as to be considered important shouldn’t the authors be concerned as to have them at least make some attempt.

Well, for what it's worth, I never took Bee's joke as an attack on the *work* represented in that paper. It *did* come across as an attack on the way it was written. And that is obviously fair. I guess that a lot of us feel that the arxiv is full of papers which leave you asking: even if this paper is correct, who cares? And very often, that feeling is a result of extremely poor paper-writing technique.

The sad thing is that, in some cases, there is actual pressure from referees to write in this way. If you really try to explain what you are up to in clear language, some referees will claim that you are just padding your paper to make it look longer or more impressive. Hence all this idiotic and harmful talk about the "words to equations ratio".

Anyway I have looked at the paper and it is not that intricate --- nothing like Witten's recent papers for example. But I confess that I still don't know why the authors bothered to write it. They may have a good reason, but they have done an excellent job of concealing that reason. LM's exegesis does not help in the slightest.

Imagine if our civilization falls like those in the past and this is one of a few fragments of our present that surfaces to survive in the future, what possible insight would it bring to those that discover it.

To answer that there is a missing hypothesis .What is the INTELLECTUAL level of those who discover it ?

If it is adequate to be able to understand group theory and QFT then they might discover in the paper an important piece of understanding the world that they have been looking for .They might even discover string theory .

However if their "mathematics" only contains simple arithmetics and their "physics" bases on shamanism then they will understand nothing .Probably they won't even be able to make the difference between a random set of symbols and a meaningful message .

“To answer that there is a missing hypothesis .What is the INTELLECTUAL level of those who discover it ?”

Actually I already recognized this when I said:“I’m of course aware that the argument will be that the subject is so advanced that what it conveys could never possibly be all that self supporting or explanatory.”

What I meant to convey was more of a challenge then anything else, as to just consider people of our own time that for the overwhelming majority it’s indecipherable. In my view it tends to have scientists looked upon similarly as to how some of the high priests were of the past, where understanding was intentionally not cultivated for only compliance was important and required. I’m not saying this is how the scientists themselves intend it yet rather what the public at large perceive. This as I see it is a major contributor to the growing fear among the general populous in regards to science and with it the continuing and disturbing rise of pseudo science.

Phil:Yet if it be regarded significant as to be considered important shouldn’t the authors be concerned as to have them at least make some attempt.

One does not disregard the experimental procedure, and does not disavow to work "beyond the result" to consider other points of view.

Because one "cannot grasp the significance of this step beyond" does not mean one should quickly dispel it to "illusions of grandeur" that one may liken too, for display:)

Your just reducing yourself to one of the herd then?:) This is not an intentional sentence, but one that some provide perspective for, going in one direction or another, and lastly, calling it shamanic. We are only dealing with "5% of the population here" and what shall survive?

Possibly for one who likens this to view a "herd mentality," it would appear as Shamanism?:)

“Because one "cannot grasp the significance of this step beyond" does not mean one should quickly dispel it to "illusions of grandeur" that one may liken too, for display:)”

I don’t recall likening it to being “illusions of grandeur” or are you quoting someone else within this thread whom I’m not able to discover. If not then I suggest it’s not I who holds the illusion. As for the herding concern you express there be nothing to fear for I am very resistant to being stampeded:-)

There is an underlying intent to produce words like "Shamanism," too "culturally appropriate" and diminish by association, elements of the current culture? To somehow imply "such value" as to this "melting pot of scientists" according too, will become the succession.:) Enlightened. Imagine turning the table then, as to implement "herding."

Somehow this will take care of the "ole school" under a new reformation in society, succeeding, where "other elements of society on this day" will have also ascended through such "transformed powers" politically?

No Parallel.

While of course, further slighting some reference to a "spiritualism interpretable," it should hold, that science is and by proponents of, directed by experimentation and as such, leads us to where perspective "should be currently housed(?)"

Such a denigrative value was then to have incurred, reveals "the failure" of every scientist.

As a brother "in Glaucon," I may of had a difference of opinion, it did not mean, that such a transformation could not and did not occur in the way one does things. Answers too, in mind, "the principled and thusly, a new formative view on what that future is to hold." The difference of opinion "on truth." Not outside, but inside.

Shakespearean then?

It is always by debate, and in the "mind of the created dialogue" it can be internalized and found to be wanting, a truth inherent to such reductionistic causes to imply something "self evident."

The "teacher and student" in one then I guess? There was no other recourse without having not travelled the institutions. Did not mean we are ignorant.